Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM (Thread 2)

mravcolev wrote in post #15527281
Why don't you just use a wider FL to make a shot like this?

I`d say cause few lens can offer you this kind of sharpness and bokeh.

Dankata wrote in post #15527141
I always pick the right time of the day, but I also use two flashes most of time, and always on HSS or in Manual.


Thanks everyone for the great comments!!

so for you all flashes are considered fill only to make it look natural? do you use bare flash outdoor?, in a stand?

mravcolev wrote in post #15527281
Why don't you just use a wider FL to make a shot like this?

aside from the sharpness and subject isolation(with a bokeh), there's also little or no distortion at all.

Kai from digitalrev review this lens and he labelled this lens as "Lord of the Red Rings".

AltgnJoey wrote in post #15525948
My first son was born on monday, so happy.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/altgnjoey/84089​88643/
Gavin by Joseph Kurtz Photography, on Flickr

Congratulations! And a big Awwwwww from me - he looks so peaceful. Looking forward to watching Gavin growing up.

Capn Fishy wrote in post #15521197
=Cap'n Fishy;15521197]Slightl​y out of left field (unlike this shot, which is clearly coming out the right field )...

Here is one taken with the 135 plus 2x TC...

Col

Nothin' like a lab working a wiley old rooster - although judging by the spurs on this one, he must've only been about a year old. Was this from a hunt club or do you have wild pheasants in Scotland?

hyogen wrote in post #15527223
You need to be about 50 feet away to frame a shot like this even on full frame, right?

The ''magical'' distance for full body portraits is 16,5 meters (54,13ft) at least for me, check the Exif of my photos and most of the full body shots are taken from this distance, I frame from the camera and usually don't crop in PP.

mravcolev wrote in post #15527281
Why don't you just use a wider FL to make a shot like this?

Because if I took this with the 35L even at f/1.4 it won't be the same bokeh, the foreground and background blur of the 135L is unique and creates a 3D effect that very few lenses can offer, not to mention the sharpness and the contrast of this lens is just great.

vinmunoz wrote in post #15527324
so for you all flashes are considered fill only to make it look natural? do you use bare flash outdoor?, in a stand?

Yes I don't like to light the subject with the flashes, just some fill and what's important for me to have catch lights in the eyes. I use bare flashes unless I am indoors, then I'd use white umbrellas

MNUplander wrote in post #15527768
...judging by the spurs on this one, he must've only been about a year old.... Was this from a hunt club or do you have wild pheasants in Scotland?

Good spot - it's a hunt that I go out with regularly. The birds are what we anglers would call 'stockies' - young but good eating for it! The hunt try to shoot pheasants and I try to 'shoot' them It's good exercise - I walk many miles in a day up hill and down dale with my rucksack - and a good challenge. Twice in a day recently I managed to catch the lead shot in mid-air! I don't tend to post the 'sportier' shots on here, as I'm not sure how members feel towards photographs of bloodsports taking place? (My own sport is fishing and I have posted a few action shots and folk seem to like them OK.)

Col

Dankata wrote in post #15528551
Because if I took this with the 35L even at f/1.4 it won't be the same bokeh, the foreground and background blur of the 135L is unique and creates a 3D effect that very few lenses can offer, not to mention the sharpness and the contrast of this lens is just great.

Yes I don't like to light the subject with the flashes, just some fill and what's important for me to have catch lights in the eyes. I use bare flashes unless I am indoors, then I'd use white umbrellas

I think your superb images say all that needs to be said about why you use the 135 for them.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Capn Fishy wrote in post #15528594
=Cap'n Fishy;15528594]I think your superb images say all that needs to be said about why you use the 135 for them.

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Do you think the fill flash is contributing to that 3D look that is isolating the subject even more - it's almost like the isolation you see with a TS lens on tilt?

Col

Thanks, yes it is definitely contributing to the 3D look, if the subject is a step brighter than the rest of the image it makes it pop more

mravcolev wrote in post #15527281
Why don't you just use a wider FL to make a shot like this?

In addition to what the master Dankata said, there's perspective and framing considerations. For the shot I posted, I really wanted the trees to frame the subject, and it wouldn't have been possible with shorter focal lengths. At least not while keeping the size relationship between the subject, trees, and background the same.

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #15528713
In addition to what the master Dankata said, there's perspective and framing considerations. For the shot I posted, I really wanted the trees to frame the subject, and it wouldn't have been possible with shorter focal lengths. At least not while keeping the size relationship between the subject, trees, and background the same.

Not a master here perhaps just a guy with good vision lol... I agree with you the framing factor is probably the most important, just like your shot I often use trees to frame the subject and many times it can be done only with telephoto lens

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …anielstoychev/8​412337646/

do you use diffuser on your bare flashes? i'm sorry but i really love your work. your work is the reason i bought this lens. and it's coming in 4hours.

vinmunoz wrote in post #15528789
do you use diffuser on your bare flashes? i'm sorry but i really love your work. your work is the reason i bought this lens. and it's coming in 4hours.

Haha sorry for that lol... no, I used diffusers before but lost them, didn't buy new as it makes no big difference